IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


k 


r/. 


//  \j^^ 


:/. 


^c 

^ 


1.0 


I.I 


He  IIP 

Mi  y^ 

t    1^    12.0 


11.25  III  1.4 


1.8 


1.6 


V] 


<^ 


/a 


% 


/a 


'/ 


Photographic 

Sciences 

Corporation 


23  WEST  MAIN  STREET 

WEBSTER,  NY.  14580 

(716)  872-4503 


a\ 


iV 


c,1>- 


^ 


6 


^ 


CIHM/ICMH 

Microfiche 

Series. 


CIHIVI/ICMH 
Collection  de 
microfiches. 


Canadian  Institute  for  Historical  Microreproductions  /  Institut  Canadian  de  microreproductions  historiques 


Technical  and  Bibliographic  Notes/Notes  techniques  et  bibliographiques 


The  Institute  has  attempted  to  obtain  the  best 
original  copy  available  for  filming.  Features  of  this 
copy  which  may  be  bibliographically  unique, 
which  may  alter  any  of  the  images  in  the 
reproduction,  or  which  may  significantly  change 
the  usual  method  of  filming,  are  checked  below. 


0 


D 


D 
D 


D 


D 


Coloured  covers/ 
Couverture  de  couleur 


I      I    Covers  damaged/ 


Couverture  endommagde 


Covers  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Couverture  restaurde  et/ou  pelliculde 


I      I    Cover  title  missing/ 


Le  titre  de  couverture  manque 

Coloured  maps/ 

Cartes  gdographiques  en  couleur 

Coloured  ink  (i.e.  other  than  blue  or  black)/ 
Encre  de  couleur  (i.e.  autre  que  bleue  ou  noire) 


I      I    Coloured  plates  and/or  illustrations/ 


Planches  et/ou  illustrations  en  couleur 

Bound  with  other  material/ 
Relid  avec  d'autres  documents 

Tight  binding  may  cause  shadows  or  distortion 
along  interior  margin/ 

La  re  liure  serrde  peut  causer  de  I'ombre  ou  de  la 
distortion  le  long  de  la  marge  int^rieure 

Blank  leaves  added  during  restoration  may 
appear  within  the  text.  Whenever  possible,  these 
have  been  omitted  from  filming/ 
II  se  peut  que  certaines  pages  blanches  ajoutdes 
lors  d'une  restauration  apparaissent  dans  le  texte, 
mais,  lorsque  cela  dtait  possible,  ces  pages  n'ont 
pas  6t6  filmdes. 

Additional  comments:/ 
Commentaires  suppldmentaires: 


L'Institut  a  microfilmd  le  meilleur  exemplaire 
qu'il  lui  a  6t6  possible  de  se  procurer.  Les  details 
de  cet  exemplaire  qui  sont  peut-dtre  uniques  du 
point  de  vue  bibliographique,  qui  peuvent  modifier 
une  image  reproduite,  ou  qui  peuvent  exiger  une 
modification  dans  la  m^thode  normale  de  filmaga 
sont  indiquds  ci-dessous. 


□    Coloured  pages/ 
Pages  de  couleur 


D 
D 
0 
D 


D 
D 

n 


Pages  damaged/ 
Pages  endommagdes 

Pages  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Pages  restaurdes  et/ou  pellicul^es 

Pages  discoloured,  stained  or  foxed/ 
Pages  d6color6es,  tachetdes  ou  piqudes 

Pages  detached/ 
Pages  ddtachdes 


QShowthrough/ 
Transparence 

D 


The 
to  tl 


The 
posi 
of  tl 
film 


Oris 

beg 

the 

sior 

oth< 

first 

sior 

or  il 


Quality  of  print  varies/ 
Qualiti  indgale  de  I'impression 

Includes  supplementary  material/ 
Comprend  du  matdriel  suppldmentaire 

Only  edition  available/ 
Seule  ddition  disponible 

Pages  wholly  or  partially  obscured  by  errata 
slips,  tissues,  etc.,  have  been  refilmed  to 
ensure  the  best  possible  image/ 
Les  pages  totalement  ou  partiellement 
obscurcies  par  un  feuillet  d'errata,  une  pelure, 
etc.,  ont  dt6  filmdes  d  nouveau  de  fapon  i 
obtenir  la  meilleure  image  possible. 


The 
shal 
TIN 
whi 

Mai 
diff( 
enti 
beg 
righ 
reqi 
mei 


This  item  is  filmed  at  the  reduction  ratio  checked  below/ 

Ce  document  est  film6  au  taux  de  reduction  indiqud  ci-dessous 

10X                             14X                             18X                             22X 

26X 

30X 

y 

12X 

16X 

20X 

24X 

28X 

32X 

The  copy  filmed  here  hes  been  reproduced  thenks 
to  the  generosity  of: 

Library  of  the  Public 
Archives  of  Canada 


L'exemplaire  film6  fut  reproduit  grflce  it  la 
g6n6ro8it6  de: 

La  bibliothdque  des  Archives 
publiques  du  Canada 


The  images  appearing  here  are  the  best  quality 
possible  considering  the  condition  and  legibility 
of  the  original  copy  and  in  keeping  with  the 
filming  contract  specifications. 


Original  copies  in  printed  paper  covers  are  filmed 
beginning  with  the  front  cover  and  ending  on 
the  last  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, or  the  back  cover  when  appropriate.  All 
other  original  copies  are  filmed  beginning  on  the 
first  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, and  ending  on  the  last  page  with  a  printed 
or  illustrated  impression. 


The  last  recorded  frame  on  each  microfiche 
shall  contain  the  symbol  —►(meaning  "CON- 
TINUED"), or  the  symbol  V  (meaning  "END"), 
whichever  applies. 

IVIaps,  plates,  charts,  etc.,  may  be  filmed  at 
different  reduction  ratios.  Those  too  large  to  be 
entirely  included  in  one  exposure  are  filmed 
beginning  in  the  upper  left  hand  corner,  left  to 
right  and  top  to  bottom,  as  many  frames  as 
required.  The  following  diagrams  illustrate  the 
method: 


Les  images  suivantes  ont  6t6  reproduites  avec  le 
plus  grand  soin,  compte  tenu  de  la  condition  et 
de  la  netteti  de  l'exemplaire  film6,  et  en 
conformity  avec  les  conditions  du  contrat  de 
filmage. 

Les  exemplaires  originaux  dont  la  couverture  en 
papier  est  imprimde  sont  film6s  en  commengant 
par  le  premier  plat  et  en  terminant  soit  par  la 
dernidre  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration,  soit  par  le  second 
plat,  selon  le  cas.  Tous  les  autres  exemplaires 
originaux  sont  filmds  en  commenpant  par  la 
premidre  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration  et  en  terminant  par 
la  dernidre  page  qui  comporte  une  telle 
empreinte. 

Un  des  symboles  suivants  apparaitra  sur  la 
dernidre  image  de  chaqud  microfiche,  selon  le 
cas:  le  symbole  — ►  signifie  "A  SUIVRE  ",  le 
symbole  V  signifie  "FIN". 

Les  cartes,  planches,  tableaux,  etc.,  peuvent  dtre 
film6s  d  des  taux  de  rdduction  diffdrents. 
Lorsque  le  document  est  trop  grand  pour  dtre 
reproduit  en  un  seul  clichd,  il  est  film6  d  partir 
de  Tangle  sup6rieur  gauche,  de  gauche  d  droite, 
et  de  haut  en  bas,  en  prenant  le  nombre 
d'images  ndcessaire.  Les  diagrammes  suivants 
illustrent  la  m6thode. 


1 

2 

3 

32X 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

^■^A,;ij3»;/vi* 


'^J4-.- 


^ 

# 


1^ 


if 


•i 


^<i 


f 


fv 


^^ 


K 


\> 


A  2s    1 X  Q  Li  I II  Y 


INIU 


C^c  |lig|t  (if  Disit  flr  |^ppr0;lc|, 


nv 


SHIPS   OF   WAK. 


BY   JAMES   WHITMAN,   KSQ.,    B.  A., 

HAIIKlMi:!!     AT    I.A  "  ,    OK    \tl\.\    SIOTIV. 


NEW    YORK: 

PUBLISHED    BY    JAMES    MfLLEU, 

No.    4;!G    KROADWAY. 

1858. 


AN    INQUIRY 


INTO 


C|(  |Ugp  flf  tisit  01'  l^proaclj, 


BY 


SHIPS  OF  WAR. 


BY  JAMES  WIIITMA]S%  ESQ.,   B.A., 

BARRISTER   AT    LAW,    OP   NOVA   SCOTIA. 


.   •  •  •    *,*• 


' '  *.  •  • .  • 


NEW  YORK: 

PUBLISHED    BY    JAMES    MILLER 

No.    430    BROADWAY. 

1858. 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  tlio  year  If^oS, 

By  James  Wiiitmax, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the 
Soutliern  District  of  New  York. 


•:■  .  *•  i/  ;  *.:  •••  •••    . 


.  •'  * 


•  •• 


NEW  VOKK  ; 

BILLIN    AND    BROTHER,   PRINTERS, 

XX,  NORTH   WILLIAM  ST. 


AN  INQUIRY 


INTO   THE 


RIGHT  OF  VISIT  OR  APPROACH, 


BY 


SHIFS    OF*    -V^j^Tl. 


>■♦♦- 


The  recent  visitation  of  several  United  States  vessels,  off 
the  coast  of  Cuba,  brought  to  the  knowledge  of  Mr.  Secre- 
tary Cass  by  newspaper  reports,  which,  in  several  instances, 
have  received  contradiction  by  the  masters  of  the  vessels 
represented  as  having  been  outraged  by  such  interference,* 
has  been  deemed  of  sufficient  importance  for  a  dispatcli, 
dated  18th  May  last,  to  Mr.  Dallas,  the  American  minister 
to  England,  by  which  he  is  instructed  to  lay  down  cer- 
tain principles  for  the  information  of  the  British  Foreign 
Secretary.  In  that  dispatch,  to  which  all  possible  pub- 
licity has  been  given.  General  Cass,  while  basing  his  com- 
plaint npon  the  highly-colored  newspaper  r.>;M»rts  of  the 
occurrences,  yet  writes  in  regard  to  them,  "  The  statements 
in  the  public  journals  contain  the  details  of  these  transac- 
tions, but  no  authentic  report  on  the  subject  has  yet  reached 
the  department." 

Will  it  be  believed,  also,  that  these  very  occurrences,  of 


*  Besides  other  cases,  see  letters  in  New  Yorh  Tomes  of  26th  May  last,  and  other 
papers,  from  masters  of  brig  "  ,S.  Thurston,"  schooner  "  Marcki  Tribou,"  and  ship 
"Escourt." 


which  Mr.  Cass  com])lains  as  outrageous  proceedings,  have 
ha{)[)eiiod  as  the  natural  result  of  his  own  request  aiul  di- 
rections 'i 

It  will  be  recollected,  hy  almost  every  hody  who  reads 
the  newsi)a])ers,  that  on  the  24:th  of  December  last  (1857) 
Lord  Kapier,  Her  J>ritannic  Majesty's  minister  at  AV^isliing- 
ton,  adchvssed  a  i)owerful  remonstrance  to  the  American 
Secretary  of  State,  calling  attention  to  "  the  present  activity 
of  the  Af/'ican  slave  trade  ;  to  the  fact  that  it  is  now  chiefly 
proseouteilhy  the  criminal  cmd fraudulent  assuniption  of  the 
United  States  fay,  and  to  the  inconimensurate  means  ichich 
are  employed''''  (by  the  Secretary's  government)  "/<:>/'  its  sup- 
pression.'''' 

His  Lordship  adds:  "Li  illustration  of  the  statements 
which  I  have  brought  under  your  notice,  it  may  be  desira- 
ble that  I  should  add  a  brief  catalogue  of  the  vessels  cap- 
tured by  IIci*  Majesty's  cruisers  on  the  west  coast  of  Africa, 
previous  to  the  month  of  October  last,  with  some  of  the  cir- 
cumstances attending  the  seizure;  but,  in  framing  this  list, 
I  must  regret  that  there  may  be  others  of  which  the  desig- 
nation has  not  yet  reached  ller  Majesty's  Legation." 

Cases  were  then  cited  as  follows : 

1st.  The  "Adams  Gray,"  seized  10th  April,  by  Iler 
Majesty's  ship  "Prometheus;"  her  name  and  "New  Or- 
leans" being  painted  on  the  stern,  and  her  captain  and 
mate,  to  all  appearance,  American  citizens. 

2d.  The  schooner  "Jupiter,"  with  70  slaves  on  board; 
fitted  out  at  New  Orleans;  captured  by  11.  M.  ship  "An- 
telope." 

.3d.  The  "Abbott  Devereux,"  taken  by  the  "Teazer," 
with  two  hundred  and  seventy  slaves  on  board  ;  sailed  from 
olf  the  coast  of  the  United  States,  via  Havana. 

4th.  The  brigantine  "Eliza  Jane;"  fitted  out  at  New 
York  ;  seized  by  the  "  Alecta,"  on  22d  August. 

5th.  Tiie  schooner  "Jos.  IL  Eecord,"  from  Newport, 
Rhode  Island ;  seized  by  "  Antelope,"  with  one  hundred  and 


6 

ninoty-ont!  slaves  on  board;  five  (Tiiitod  States  citizens 
anion^  the  crew. 

(Itli.  Tlie  "William  Clark,"  of  New  Orleans;  seized  by 
"Firefly;"  exhibited  American  colors,  and  for^^^ed  Ameri- 
can papers.  The  vessel  was  remarked  to  be  in  correspond- 
ence with  another  craft  in  the  othng,  nnder  American  colors. 

Ttli.  The  bri<>jantine  "Onward,"  of  Boston;  owned  by 
Messrs.  Lafitte,  of  New  York,  and  fnlly  fitted  for  the  slave 

trade. 

Sth.  The  bark  "  Charles,"  of  Baltimore ;  fitted  ont  at  New 

Orleans. 

9th.  "  General  Pinckney,"  or  Pierce. 

10th.  The  bark  "  Splendid,"  of  Boston. 

llth.  Tlio  "North  Hand,"  of  New  York. 

12th.  The  "  W.  D.  Miller,"  nnder  American  colors. 

13th.  The  "Panchita,"  of  New  York. 

14th.  The  "  Nancy,"  of  New  Orleans. 

15th.  The  "  Minentonga,"  stated  by  Admiral  Grey,  com- 
manding at  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  to  be  one  of  several  Amer- 
ican vessels  fitted  oat  for  the  slave  trade,  as  follows : 

16th.  The  "  Isle  of  Cnba." 

17th.  The  "  Jamestown,"  of  New  York. 

18th.  The  "  Putnam." 

19th.  The  "  Charlotte,"  of  New  York. 

20th.  The  "  Wizard,"  of  New  Orleans. 

21st.  The  "  Petrel,"  of  New  Yoik. 

22d.  The  "  Ellen,"  of  New  York. 

23d.  The  "  Cole." 

24th.  The  "  Globe." 

25th.  The  "Spirit  of '76." 

26th.  The  "  Eeindeer." 

27th.  The  "  Vesta." 

28th.  The  "  Flying  Eagle." 

29th.  The  "  James  Buchanan." 
Or  nearly  an  American  slaver  for  every  state  in  the  Union, 
and  one  of  them  bearing  the  name  of  its  chief  magistrate. 


r> 


But  while  tills  letter  of  Lord  Nupior'fi,  puMisliotl  in  most 
of  the  Now  York  joiirimlrt  of  iiboiit  the  tilst  of  Miiy  last, 
inuy  be  well  remembered,  tlio  reply  which  it  called  forth 
i'rom  General  (Jass  seems  to  be  almost  universally  over- 
looked, niitwithstandin^  its  pertinence  to  the  [)resent  dis- 
cussion. 

Mr.  Cass,  re}»lyiiig  to  Lord  Xaj)ler,  under  date  of  10th 
A])ril,  1S5S,  (see  Wanh'iuytoii  Union  of  24:th  April  Bubse- 
quent,)  remarks: 

"Experience  has  come  to  test  the  measures  proposed,  and 
they  have  been  found  iiuulccpuite  to  the  extinction  of  the 
evil,  so  much  so,  that,  in  the  oj>inion  of  your  government, 
its  present  activity  demands  increased  exertions  on  the  part 
of  the  United  States,  with  a  view  to  accomplish  the  object. 
Those  exertions,  it  is  suggested,  should  1)0  directed  to  the 
coast  of  Africa,  in  order  to  render  the  blockade  more  effect- 
ual, and  especially  to  examine  and  deal  with  vessels  bearing 
the  American  flag  and  suspected  of  being  engaged  in  this 
trade.  This  system  of  a  joint  blockade  has  been  pursued  for 
some  years,  and  the  benefit  it  has  j^roduced  bears  no  reason- 
able proportion,  I  regret  to  say,  to  the  expenditure  of  life  and 
treasure  it  has  cost.  But  this  failure  need  not  discourage 
the  anxious  hopes  of  Christendom.  There  is  another  way 
of  proceeding,  without  the  dangers,  and  doubts,  and  difficul- 
ties, and  inefficiency  which  beset  a  blochtde,  and  lohich  is 
sure  to  succeed  if  adoj}ted  and  pei'severed  in,  and  that  is,  to 
close  the  slave  mart  of  the  wc^rld,  OB  R  ATIIEB,  OF  THE 
ISLAND  OF  CUBA,  which  is  now  almost  the  only  region 
ivere  the  slave  dealer  can  find  a  market.  If  these  unfortunjite 
victims  could  not  be  sold,  they  would  not  be  bought.  To 
shut  the  2>orts  of  Cuba  to  their  entrance,  is  to  shut  the  ports 
of  Africa  to  their  departure,  and  to  effect  this,  nothing 
would  seem  to  be  wanting  but  the  cordial  co-operation  of 
the  Spanish  government.  The  conventional  arrangements 
which  exist  between  Great  Britain,  and  France,  and  Spain 
for  their  mutual  co-operation  in  the  suppression  of  the  slave 


tiwloaro  voiy  importV'ctly  known  l<>  me,  l>iit  it  is  nn<UTsfo.>(l 
that  Spain  lias  entered  int(t  en<;a^H-nients  witlj  (treat  liritain, 
it'  not  with  France  also,  llmt  she  will  use  her  best  exertions 
to  prevent  the  importation  of  slaves  iiiio  lier  dominions. 
Tills  pled<j^e,  it*  ^'iven,  has  certainly  not  heen  redeemed, 
tliouf^di  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  the  Spanish  ijovernnient 
would  resist  or  no<^lect  tlie  firm  remonstrances  of  those  two 
great  powers,  or  even  of  (ireat  Tiritain  alone,  if  she  alone 
lias  the  right,  by  treaty  stipulations,  to  denumd  of  Spain  the 
faithful  i)erformancc  of  duties  which  she  has  vohmtarilv  as- 
Kumed.  Ujxii'  the  course  of  the  iSjninisJi  yoreminevt  f<fr 
more  depeiuh  than  upon  the  mod  r'ajoroux  blo<'ka<Ie  of  the 
African  coast.'''' 

It  i'^  in  accordance  with  sncli  views  on  the  part  of  Mr. 
Cass,  that  the  J>i-iti8h  government  turned  its  attention,  for 
the  supprcrsioii  of  the  slave  trade,  from  Africa  to  Cuba; 
deeming  that  the  right  of  visit,  as  it  had  been  exercised  on 
the  one  coast,  would  be  unobjectionable  upon  the  other.  It 
is  true  that  the  Icgitinuite  trade  of  the  United  States  on  the 
coast  of  Africa  is  of  such  small  amount  as  to  give  rise  to 
grave  suspicions,  when  the  American  tlag  is  frequently  dis- 
played :  but,  on  the  other  hand,  the  island  of  Cuba  is  the 
great  slave  mart,  and  as  most  of  the  vessels  known  to  be 
engaged  in  the  trade  are  American  built,  the  occasional  in- 
convenience to  which  legitimate  American  traders  on  the 
coast  of  Cuba  are  subjected,  ought  n^t  to  be  nuide  a  mat- 
ter of  serious  complaint. 

If  the  Britisli  naval  officer  generally  meets  the  demand 
of  his  country,  which  "expects  him  to  do  his  duty,"  there  is 
none  more  anxious  not  to  overstep  the  line  of  his  instruc- 
tions; and,  in  this  particulai-  case,  the  following  letter  from 
Commodore  Rogers,  bears  an  intelligent  and  honest  testi- 
mony to  the  total  absence  of  design  on  the  part  of  Her  Ma- 
jesty's officers  to  injure  or  insult  the  flag  of  the  United 
States.  AVhen  such  insinuations  as  we  daily  hear  uttered  in 
high  places  as  to  the  malignant  designs  of  England,  or  its 


8 

government,  to  force  a  war  upon  America,  are  received 
with  general  credence,  the  prospect  of  continual  peace  will 
become  gloomy  indeed. 

But  to  the  whole  English  nation  there  could  be  presented 
no  state  so  horrible  as  a  war  with  America — none  to  which 
they  would  make  greater  sacrifices  to  avoid.  No  journal 
that  suggested  any  benefit  to  be  derived  therefrom,  could 
live  an  hour,  thr  nigli  the  public  execration  it  would  invoke. 
No  minister  who  valued  his  position,  his  fame,  nay,  even  his 
personal  safety  or  existence,  w^ould  dare,  in  England,  to  lay 
measures  in  such  train  as  to  produce  that  fearful  calamity ; 
nor  do  we  suppose,  when  the  angry  cloud  of  passionate  mis- 
representation wliich  has  been  thrown  around  the  subject  of 
the  recent  visits  to  American  vessels  shall  have  passed  away, 
that  the  American  people  will  be  less  disposed  to  acknowl- 
edge that  the  trut&t  interests  of  America,  as  of  England,  lie 
in  peace  with  each  other,  at  any  sacrifice  but  that  of  duty ; 
or  that  they  will  less  honor  such  men  as  Rogers  than 
those  whose  misguided  or  malignant  patriotism  paint  the 
scenery  of  war  with  a  brilliant  light,  oidy  directed  to  reveal 
its  spoils  and  prizes,  while  casting  its  train  of  suffering  and 
horrors  into  intentional  shade. 

But  let  the  better  language  of  Commodore  Rogers  speak : 


IT.  S,  Steamer  Water-Witch, 
Key  West,  Thursday,  June  3,  1858. 

Sir:  I  arrived  here  safely  to-day  for  coal.  AH  well  on 
board.  I  leave  to-mon-ow  for  Havana,  where  I  shall  find 
11.  B.  M.  steamer  "  Devastation,"  which  has  brought  in- 
structions from  Admiral  Seymour  to  the  cruisers  upon  the 
coast  of  Cuba.  II.  B.  M.  steam  gunboat "  Jasper,"  commanded 
by  Lieutenant  William  II.  Pym,  came  into  this  harbor  this 
morning  in  search  of  the  "  Styx,"  to  deliver  dispatches  from 
the  Admiral.  Lieutenant  P".  stated  to  me  that  his  instruc- 
tions were  printed,  and  were  dated,  he  believed,  1849;  that 
they  were,  at  all  events,  the  mstructmis  lie  had  acted  icpon 
on  the  coast  of  Africa  n'me  years  ago.  He  said  he  believed, 


9 


or  rather  w.ir  sure,  no  new  instrnctions  had  been  received 
from  the  British  government  for  the  guidance  of  the  vessels 
on  the  coast  of  Cuba.  lie  said  that  the  "Creole"  was  a 
slaver,  and  that  soon  after  her  capture  colors  and  papers 
both  disappeared,  the  captain  declaring  that  he  was  not  en- 
titled to  American  papers  or  colors. 

He  said  that,  in  another  case,  where  he  had  sent  his 
quartermaster  with  a  spy-glass  to  ask  perniission  to  ascend 
the  mast  of  the  outermost  vessel  in  the  harbor  of  Matanzas, 
in  order  to  see  whether  the  "Styx"  was  in  sight,  the  cap- 
tain said  laughingly  afterwards,  that  he  had  hoaxed  a  news- 
paper writer  into  the  belief  that  he  had  been  boarded  by 
British  lillibusters.  He  asserted  that  he  was  sure,  upon  ex- 
amination, he  would  be  found  to  have  done  no  wrong  to  the 
American  flag.  He  admitted  that^  in  certain  casen^  he  had 
fired  near  vesnels  to  make  them  show  their  colors,  and  asked 
TYie  if  he  had  heen  guilty  of  any  wrong  in  so  doing.  To  this 
I  said  that  I  had  no  official  opinion,  hut  that  I  thought  not. 

However  the  law  may  be  in  this  case,  it  is  held,  as  far  as 
I  know,  the  usage  of  the  sea  service  (itself  a  law)  for  men- 
of-war  to  show  their  flags  to  one  another ;  and  it  is  the  gen- 
eral opinion  of  naval  men  that  merchant  vessels,  upon  neg- 
lect or  refusal  to  do  so,  may  be  compelled  to  do  it,  without 
trenching  upon  their  rights.  Lieutenant  Pym  seemed  sur- 
prised at  the  light  in  which  the  acts  of  the  British  cruisers 
are  regarded  by  the  government  of  the  United  States. 
I  have  the  honor  to  be,  your  obedient  servant, 

JOHN  RODGERS, 
Connnander,  United  States  Navy. 

The  Hon.  Isaac  Toucey,  Secretary  of  the  Navy. 

"Audi  alteram 2yci'i'teni,^''  is  a  j^rinciple  which  all  men,  not 
given  np  to  such  influences  as  the  gods  first  inflict  upon 
those  whom  they  wish  to  destroy,  will  naturally  follow  be- 
fore they  thunder  out  their  decision,  founded  solely  upon 
the  story  told  them  first. 

Brief  and  unsatisfactory  as  the  interval  has  been  to  ob- 
tain a  full  hearing  of  the  other  side,  we  have  yet,  through 
partisan  channels,  such  vindication  with  regard  to  the  vis- 
itation of  American  vessels  before  alluded  to,  as  the  fol- 
lowing communication,  which,  without  any  very  uneasy 


10 

stretch  of  the  ima<i;ination,  may  fix  a  denial  in  toto  upon  all 
the  tales  of  British  outrages,  poured  forth  in  such  patriotic 
strains  hy  journals  earing  less  to  err  upon  the  side  of  truth, 
than  to  find  a  market  for  their  principles  and  assertions. 

In  the  Neiv  York  Times  of  June  17th  of  this  year,  (1858,) 
we  find  the  following : 


STATEMENT   OF   LIEUT.    PYII,    OF   11.    M.    STIOAMER   JASPER. 

The  Key  West  correspondent  of  the  Charleston  Courier^ 
under  date  of  June  10th,  says : 

"The  British  gunboat  ''Jasper,"  Lieut.  Com.  Pyni,  re- 
ported hy  the  "  Atlantic"  as  at  this  port  on  the  4th,  sailed 
the  same  day  on  a  cruise  in  search  of  the  steamer  •'  Styx," 
having  dispatches  from  the  British  Admiral  for  the  com- 
mander of  that  vessel,  he  being  the  senior  officer  of  the 
West  India  fleet.  Tiie  dispatches  are  supposed  to  relate  to 
the  boarding  and  searching  exploits  of  the  squadron,  with 
orders,  doubtless,  to  discontinue  the  same. 

"  An  American  naval  officer  had  a  long  conference  with 
Lieut.  Pym,  the  evening  of  his  arrival  at  Key  West,  upon 
the  present  all-absorbing  subject  of  the  'right  of  search/ 
and  the  overhauling  and  firing  into  American  vessels  in  the 
gulf.  Lieut.  Pym  assured  the  officer  that  no  new  tnstruc- 
tions  had  been  given  him  by  his  government,  but  tliat  he 
and  all  his  consorts  were  acting  under  printed  orders  issued 
in  1819.  The  activity  of  the  fleet,  as  jnanifested  by  their 
boarding  and  firing  into  some  forty  or  fifty  vessels  during 
the  two  past  montlis,  probably  had  its  origin  in  this  wise : 
'  A  few  weeks  ago,'  said  Lieut.  Pym,  '  when  cruising  off  the 
Moro,  I  boarded  an  American  vessel  that  had  just  left  port, 
and,  in  answer  to  inquiries  fur  news,  was  told  that  a  splen- 
did clipper  ship  w^as  fitting  out  for  the  slave  trade,  and 
would  be  ready  to  sail  the  following  day.  I  accordingly 
watched  for  her,  and  had  the  satisfaction  the  following  day 
of  taking  a  vahnible  prize.  She  had  the  most  complete 
outfit,  a  large  stock  of  provisions,  ample  accommodations 
for  one  thousand  five  hundred  slaves,  and  besides  a  bag  con- 
taining 2,300  doubloons,  with  which  her  cargo  was  to  be 
purchased.  Proof  being  sufficient,  she  was  taken  to  Jamaica, 
libelled  and  condemned.  She  w^as  a  lawful  prize,  and  sold, 
with  all  on  board,  for  $100,000.    The  steamer  "  Styx"  being 


11 

in  si^ht,  was  entitled  to  one-lialf  the  prize  money,  or  my 
share  woukl  have  been  ^1<»,000.  As  it  was,  I  received 
$5,000  tor  a  couple  of  hours  work.'  He  should  have  men- 
tioned the  fact  that  seventeen  shots  were  tired  at  the  ship 
l)efore  she  ^ave  up,  all  of  which  were  fired  by  Lieut.  Pyni, 
who,  fearing  she  might  be  a  merchantman,  ail  blame  would 
be  attached  to  him  alone.  It  is  reasonable  to  su})pose  that 
this  success  has  prompted  the  Jh-itish  fleet  to  increased  zeal 
in  scouring  our  seas  in  search  of  vessels  engaged  in  the  slave 
trade.  The  seizure  and  condeimiation  of  tliis  first-class  ship 
(she  had  been  used  by  the  French  as  a  transport  during  the 
llussian  war)  would  show  that  respectability,  size,  and 
beauty  of  model,  in  vessels  passing  a  cruiser  at  sea,  was  no 
proof  that  her  mission  was  a  commercial  one. 

"Lieut.  Pym  asserts  that  the  newspaper  accounts  are 
much  exaggerated,  and  in  many  instances  are  altogether 
false.  The  seizure  of  the  '  Oortez,'  an  account  of  which  has 
gone  all  over  our  land,  is  an  instance  of  the  grossest  exag- 
geration. The  ca})tain  of  that  vessel,  when  ovcrhaided  by 
the  gunboat,  threw  his  flag  and  his  papers  into  the  sea,  and 
declared  himself  to  be  a  S[)aniard.  Contraband  articles 
were  found  on  board,  all  clearly  proving  the  vessel  to  be  a 
slaver.  She  was  accoidingly  sent  to  Jamaica  as  a  prize, 
and  is  doubtless  condenmed  and  sold.  Lieut.  Pym  com- 
plains that  many  of  our  shipmasters  have  a  habit  of  run- 
ning their  colors  up  and  instantly  hauling  them  down,  not 
allowing  the  wind  to  unfurl  them.  He  thinks,  as  an  act  of 
mere  courtesy,  the  colors  of  a  vessel  should  be  boldly  shown, 
and  allowed  to  remain  at  the  peak  a  reasonable  time,  lie 
is  not  aware  of  having  exceeded  any  instructions  authorized 
in  his  printed  regulations,  of  date  1840.  He  is  ready  and 
anxious  to  explain  each  aiid  every  case  of  boarding  in  which 
he  has  been  concerned;  he  will  answer  for  himself,  and  his 
oflicers,  that  the  routi?ie  of  boarding  and  examining  Amer- 
ican vessels  has  .een  conducted  in  an  unexceptionable 
manner,  and  without  any  intention  of  insult,  or  any  exhibi- 
tion of  rudeness  or  ill-tem))er,  and  if  any  of  our  national 
rights  have  been  invaded,  it  is  his  government  who  gave 
him  his  orders,  who  must  answer." 


We  cannot  reasonably  infer  from  the  statements  in  Lord 
Napier's  letter,  that  the  United  States  ^ag perse,  is,  as  most 


12 

of  the  leading  advocates  against  tlie  right  of  visit  to  any 
craft  lioisting  it  assert,  above  suspicion — an  argument  which 
tlie  hite  Daniel  Webster  endeavored  to  establish,  when,  as 
Secretary  of  State  he  addressed  his  somewliat  famous  mani- 
festo, under  date  of  28th  March,  1843,  to  Mr.  Everett,  the 
American  minister  to  England. 

The  Earl  of  Aberdeen,  tlion  British  Foreign  Secretary  of 
State,  thus  enunciates  the  principles  of  his  government. 

"The  undersigned  again  renounces,  as  he  has  already 
done  in  the  most  exjjlicit  terms,  any  right  on  the  part  of  the 
British  Government  to  search  American  vessels  in  time  of 
peace. 

"  The  right  of  search,  except  when  specially  conceded  by 
treaty,  is  a  purely  belligerent  right,  and  can  have  no 
existence  on  the  high  seas  during  peace.  Tlie  undersigned 
apprehends,  however,  that  the  right  of  search  is  not  confined 
to  the  verification  of  the  nationality  of  the  vessel,  but  ex- 
tends to  the  objects  of  the  voyage  and  tlie  nature  of  the 
cargo.  The  sole  purpose  of  the  British  cruisers  is  to  ascer- 
tain lohether  the  vessels  they  meet  with  are  ideally  American 
vessels  or  not.  The  right  asserted  has  in  truth  no  resem- 
blance to  the  right  of  search,  either  in  principle  or  in  prac- 
tice. It  is  simply  a  right  to  satisfy  the  party  who  has  a 
legitimate  interest  in  knowing  the  truth,  that  the  vessel  ac- 
tually is  what  her  colors  announce.  This  right  we  concede 
as  freely  as  we  exe7'cise.^^  See  Lord  Aberdeen's  letter  to 
Mr.  Everett,  London,  December,  1842. 

This  argument  is,  however,  met  on  the  part  of  General 
Cass  by  a  denial  of  any  distinction  between  the  right  of  search 
and  visit ;  a  position,  in  which,  as  we  shall  show,  he  is  not 
borne  out  either  by  reason  or  authority.  The  right  to  visit 
ships  hoisting  American  colors  is  also  stated  to  be  an  as- 
sumption of  modern  date,  whereas  it  has  been  the  custom 
from  time  immemorial  for  ships  of  war  of  all  nations  to  visit 
vessels  at  sea,  suspected  of  any  false  assumption  of  nationality 
for  illegal  or  criminal  objects.    Lord  Aberdeen,  in  his  letter 


18 


of  13tli  October,  1841,  to  Mr.  Stevenson,  then  tlie  American 
minister  at  London,  says :  "  It  has  hen  the  mvariaUe  pvao- 
tice  of  the  Bntiish  navy  and  of  all  the  navies  in  the  worlds 
to  ascertain  hy  visit  the  real  natiomlity  of  mercliant  vessels 
on  the  high  seas,  if  there  he  good  reason  to  apprehend  their 
illegal  character^  See  AVlieaton  on  the  Eight  of  Search, 
page  125. 

One  of  the  principal  reast»ns  why  the  right  of  visit,  as  dis- 
tinguished from  the  riglit  of  search,  may  liave  to  many 
minds  the  appearance  of  a  new  principle  in  the  law  of  na- 
tions, is,  from  the  fact  of  the  previous  claim  of  British  shins 
of  war  to  search  American  vessels  having  been  always  ex- 
ercised in  conjunction  with  the  right  of  visit  as  incidental 
to  it ;  and  though  no  renunciation  of  the  claim  to  the  right 
as  exercised  by  Great  Britain,  and  causing  the  war  of  1812 
with  the  United  States,  was  mentioned  in  the  treaty  conclu- 
sive of  the  war,  yet  England  has,  of  her  own  consent,  and 
to  a  much  greater  extent  than  that  to  which  the  objects  of 
the  war  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  were  directed,  re- 
nounced the  right  of  search  as  then  claimed  by  her,  but  not 
the  right  of  visit. 

We  come  now  to  the  very  essence  of  the  whole  difficulty  : 
What  constitutes  an  American  vessel  ?  Does  a  vessel  be- 
come American  by  hoisting  the  American  flag?  If  not, 
how  are  you  to  ascertain  that  she  is  American,  or  to  what 
nation  she  belongs  ?  Certainly,  by  a  reference  to  her  papers, 
which  at  sea  cannot  l>e  either  easily  or  conveniently  done 
without  flrst  boarding  her  for  the  purpose.  But  says  Mr. 
Webster,  in  his  letter  on  this  subject  to  Mr.  Everett,  dated 
28th  March,  1843 : 

"If  visit  or  visitation  be  not  accompanied  by  search, 
it  will  be  in  most  cases  nearly  idle.  A  siglit  of  papers 
may  be  demanded,  and  papers  may  be  produced.  But  it 
is  known  that  slave-traders  carry  false  papers,  and  different 
sets  of  papers.  A  search  for  other  papers,  then,  must  be 
made  where  suspicion  justifies  it,  or  else  the  whole  proceed- 
ing would  be  nugatory.    In  sus])icious  cases,  the  language 


!!i 


14 

and  general  appearance  of  the  crew  are  among  the  means 
of  ascertaining  tlie  national  character  of  the  vessel.  The 
cargo  on  board,  also,  often  indicates  the  country  from 
which  she  comes.  Her  log-book,  showing  the  previous 
course  and  events  of  her  voyage,  her  internal  iltment  and 
equij)ment,  are  all  evidences  for  l»er,  or  against  her,  on  her 
allegation  of  character.  These  matters,  it  is  obvious,  can 
only  be  ascertained  by  rigorous  search." 

The  objection  to  this  argument  has  been  so  intelligibly 
and  conclusively  met  by  the  editorial  of  the  Evening  Post 
of  June  7th  ultimo,  that  we  cannot  do  better  than  subjoin 
that  part  of  it  which  relates  to  this  particular  point : 

"If  papers  are  not  conclusive  proof  of  a  vessel's  nation- 
ality, when  demanded  by  a  British  cruiser,  on  suspicion  of 
being  engaged  in  the  slave  trade,  how  are  they  conclusive 
proof  of  her  neutrality,  wlien  boarded  by  belligerent  cruisers 
in  time  of  war;  or  how  do  they  'show  her  national  charac- 
ter, or  the  lawfulness  of  her  voyage  in  the  ports  of  those 
countries  to  which  she  may  pi'oceed  for  purposes  of  trade  V 
If  they  maybe  forged,  or  held  in  duplicate  in  one  case,  why 
not  in  the  other  ?  Suppose  a  war  broke  out  between  Eng- 
land and  France  to-morrow,  and  Yankee  speculators  sent 
cargoes  of  rifles  or  gunpowder  or  any  othei'  article  contra- 
band of  war  to  Havre,  and  the  ships  were  boarded  on  the 
way  in  the  middle  of  the  Atlantic,  why  might  they  not  ex- 
hibit forged  i^apers  showing  their  destination  to  be  Constan- 
tinople, and  why  might  not  tliis  very  possibility  be  used  as 
an  argument  by  General  Cass  against  their  being  boarded 
at  all^  If  Mr.  Webster's  argument  proves  any  thing,  it 
proves  the  absurdity  of  giving  a  ship  any  papers  whatever, 
or  askinf^  her  to  carry  any  cf>lors.  Custom-house  clearances 
are,  by  this  reasoning,  a  stupid  formality,  and  Howell  Cobb's 
elaborate  refusal  of  tliem  to  Messrs.  Lafitte  &  Co.,  the  other 
day,  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  over  '  African  apprentices,' 
a  piece  of  barren  diatectics." 

That  the  right  of  visit,  as  claimed  and  now  acted  upon  by 
Great  Britain,  has  been  the  doctrine  ever  since  the  establish- 
ment of  any  recognized  principles  of  international  law, 
there  can  hardly  be  any  reasonable  doubt.     It  has  been  the 


15 


principle  upon  which  the  seas  have  been  so  happily  cleared 
of  pirates.  It  is  a  princi[)le  which  is  being  daily  acted  uj)on 
in  the  Chinese  and  Eastern  seas,  to  the  exercise  of  wMch,  in 
those  waters,  no  manner  of  ol)jection  Avould  ever  be  taken 
by  the  United  States,  if  the  flag  of  that  country  were  fraud- 
ulently .assumed  by  Malay  or  other  eastern  rovers ;  because 
the  pirates  of  that  region,  as  hostes  humani  generis,  are 
dreaded  by  American  ships  themselves,  and  they  feel  that 
the  submission  to  the  claim  of  visit  is  but  the  surrender  of  a 
part  of  their  natural  liberty  for  its  better  ultimate  protec- 
tion and  warranty  as  a  whole. 

In  carrying  out  the  logical  consequence  of  the  principle 
as  contended  for  by  General  Cass,  the  reductio  ad  ctbsurdum 
becomes  evident  in  the  following  application. 

We  will  suppose  an  English  vessel,  engaged  as  a  pirate, 
a  slaver,  or  indeed,  engaged  in  any  trattic  whatever,  to 
hoist  an  American  flag  in  sight  of  a  British  cruiser,  whose 
suspicions  are  excited  as  to  her  really  being  an  American 
vessel,  and  which  suspicions  are,  by  actual  visit,  confirmed 
in  the  discovery  of  the  true  character  of  the  vessel.  Now, 
in  this  case,  a  violation  of  the  American  doctrine  will  have 
been  committed,  and  according  to  that  doctrine,  an  outrage, 
also,  to  the  American  flag  will  have  been  offered ;  for  both 
of  which,  a})ology  must  be  oft'ered,  and  redress  awarded. 
But  to  whom  is  the  measure  of  damages  to  be  paid  ?  And, 
seriously,  is  it  expected  that  Great  Britain,  or  any  other 
nation,  will,  or  can,  part  with  jurisdiction  over  her  own 
subjects,  by  concurring  in  a  ductrine  whose  legal  and  nec- 
essary consequence  would  compel  her  so  to  do  \ 

Should  the  doctrine  hold,  that  the  flag  alone,  without  any 
further  authentification  of  nationality,  protects  every  ship 
from  visit,  we  shall  soon  see  the  ocean  again  infested  with 
pirates,  and  perhaps  a  bloody  battle  fought  between  two 
great  nations  before  the  liberty  to  extirpate  them  can  be 
obtained.  But  whether  that  would  happen  or  not,  the  ob- 
taining of  such   doctrine  would  be  a  virtual  relinquish- 


16 


inent  of  all  interference  with  the  slave  trade,  if  not,  indeed, 
the  signal  for  its  speedy  legalization  and  vigorous  re-estab- 
lislinient. 

While  General  Cass  points  to  Cuba  as  the  only  existing 
slave  mart  of  the  world,  it  is  well  known  that  active  meas- 
ures and  a  large  amount  of  capital  are  in  operation  along 
the  banks  of  the  Mississippi  for  the  introduction  of  slaves 
from  Africa  into  that  region.  Whether  as  yet  any  cargoes 
have  been  successfully  introduced,  no  one  can  either  affirm 
or  deny,  but  public  rumor  is  rife  on  the  subject. 

We  have  seen  by  the  letter  of  Commodore  Rogers,  that 
the  British  cruisei's  are  doing  nothing  more  on  the  coast  of 
Cuba  with  regard  to  American  vessels  than  they  have  been 
doing  on  the  coast  of  Africa,  since  1849,  and  not  half  so 
much  as  they  were  then  and  there  previously  in  the  habit 
of  doing,  ever  since  the  slave  trade  had  been  nuide  illegal 
by  the  laws  of  the  two  nations. 

Indeed,  it  appears  by  the  recent  debate  in  the  House  of 
Lords,  on  the  17th  of  June  last,  that  Lord  Aberdeen,  speak- 
ing of  the  instructions  under  which  he  supposes  the  British 
cruisers  to  be  at  present  acting,  states,  "  they  were  drawn 
up  with  great  care  and  attention,  communicated  at  the  time 
to  the  AmeHcan  govermnent^  and  acquiesced  in  hy  Mr. 
Webster  on  the  part  of  that  government  .^" 

Some  expressions  dropped  by  Lord  Malmsbnry,  in  that 
debate,  have  given  rise  to  an  impression  of  an  acquies- 
cence by  the  British  government  in  the  doctrine  claimed  by 
the  ultra  advocates  of  the  American  right,  viz. :  that  the 
mere  hoisting  of  an  American  flag  by  any  vessel,  no  matter 
how  strong  the  suspicions  may  attach  to  her  of  not  being 
American,  and  of  her  being  engaged  in  criminal  or  unlaw- 
ful traffic,  gives  such  vessel  perfect  immunity  from  any 
visit  or  molestation  by  ships  of  war  other  than  those  of  the 
American  nation. 

Sure  it  is,  that  no  one  present  at  that  debate,  so  under- 
stood the  noble  Secretary  for  Foreign  Afiairs,  nor  can  we 


11 

J  ii-aibly  conceive  sncli  to  liavc  been  his  meaning.  Lord 
Miilmbbmy  said  the  British  government  liad,  upon  consult- 
ation with  the  legal  adviisers  of  the  crown,  come  to  an 
acquiescence  with  the  doctrine  as  to  the  right  of  visitation 
and  search,  put  forth  by  General  Cass  on  behalf  of  the 
American  government,  in  his  dispatch  to  Mr.  Dallas,  of  the 
18th  of  May  last.  But  what  doctrine  was  that?  Quite 
different  from  that  expounded  by  the  American  Secretary  on 
otlier  occasions,  and  in  effect  similar  to  the  doctrine  upon 
which  Great  Britain  has  for  some  years  been  acting,  viz., 
in  Mr.  Cass's  own  language : — 

"A  merchant  vessel  upon  the  high  seas  is  protected  by 
her  national  character.  He  who  forcibly  enters  her  does  so 
upon  his  own  responsibility.  Undoubtedly,  if  a  vessel  as- 
smne  a  national  character  to  which  she  is  not  entitled,  and 
is  sailing  under  false  colors,  she  cannot  be  protected  by  this 
assumption  of  a  nationality  to  which  she  has  no  claim.  As  the 
identity  of  a  person  must  be  determined  by  the  officer  bear- 
ing a  })rocess  for  his  arrest,  and  determined  at  the  risk  of 
such  officer,  so  must  the  national  identity  of  a  vessel  be  de- 
termined at  the  like  hazard  to  him  who,  doubting  the  flag 
she  displays,  searches  her  to  ascertain  her  true  character. 
27iere,  no  douht,  may  he  circumstances  which  would  go  far 
to  modifij  the  complaints  a  nation  would  have  a  right  to 
make  for  such  a  violation  of  its  sovereignti/.  If  the  hoard- 
ing officer  had. fist  grounds  for  suspicion,  and  deported  him- 
self with  propriety  in  the  perf on  nance  of  his  task,  doing  no 
injury,  and i^^aeuthly  retiring  'when  satisfied  of  his  error,  no 
nation  would  make  such  an  act  the  suhject  of  serious  reclo.m- 
ationy 

This  is  the  acquiescence  in  the  American  doctrine  which 
Lord  Malmsbury,  in  the  Peers,  and  Mr.  Fitzgerald,  in  the 
Commons,  announced  the  British  government  as  having 
come  to.  But  Lord  Aberdeen  had  written  to  the  American 
minister  as  early  as  1841,  in  defence  of  the  claim  of  the 
right  of  visit  under  warrantable  suspicion,  that,  "  if  in 
spite  of  the  utmost  caution,  an  error  should  be  committed, 
it  will  be  followed  by  prompt  reparation,  and  the  British 


18 


cruisers  have  no  v\(^\[t  to  iiitcrtbro  with  American  vessels, 
whatever  their  destiuatioii,  even  it'  en;^ii^ed  in  tlie  slave 
trade.'" 

Any  nation  in  earnest  to  put  down  the  shivo  trade  must 
allow  ships  of  war  the  right  to  visit  merchant  vessels,  under 
suspicious  circumstances;  otherwise,  all  laws  for  tlie  su[)i)re8- 
sionof  such  criminal  pursuits  will  remain  a  dead  letter. 

In  the  language  of  Mr.  Eunnett,  counsel  for  the  ai)i)ellants 
in  the  case  of  the  "Marianna  Flora,"  11  Wheatou,  p.  11 : — 
"The  dangerous  ])irates  are,  for  the  most  part,  not  ditKcult 
to  distinguish.  Their  haunta^  tlieir  habits,  their  appearance, 
point  them  out;  and  though  the  commissicmed  olHcer  acts 
on  his  own  risk,  yet,  if  he  act.  on  those  ''  ituUcia^  and  on  in- 
formation and  evidence  of  guilt,  he  incurs  no  real  danger  of 
being  liable  to  damages,  and,  in  any  event,  may  rely  on  the 
justice  and  liberality  of  his  own  government  for  protection." 

Lord  Stowell,  that  enlightened  ex})ounder  of  the  law  of 
nations,  as  applied  to  maritiuio  rights,  whose  decision  in  the 
case  of  "Le  Louis"  is  so  often  quoted  as  such  high  author- 
ity by  the  advocates  of  the  American  view  of  the  question 
of  the  right  of  visit,  says,  in  the  case  of  the  "Maria,"  1 
Kobinson,  Admit.  Rep.,  p.  372  :  "Even  those  who  coiitend 
for  the"  (then)  "  inadmissible  rule  that  free  ships  make  free 
goods,  must  admit  the  exercise  of  the  right  of  visitation  and 
search,  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  whether  the  shijjs  are 
free  or  not.^^ 

This,  though  spoken  of  as  the  exercise  of  a  belligerent 
right  respecting  neutrals,  is  a  precisely  analogous  mode  of 
reasoning  in  the  case  of  the  right  of  visit  to  ships  in  time  of 
peace,  under  the  suspicion  of  being  engaged  in  carrying 
slaves,  in  order  to  ascertain  whether  they  are  so  engaged  or 
not,  or  whether  the  ships  are  free  from  seizure  or  not,  from 
being  so  engaged. 

Kent,  the  great  expounder  of  American  law,  lays  down 
the  doctrine  in  a  note  to  the  first  volume  of  his  Com- 
mentaries, page  153,  sixth  edition,  as  follows:    "The  in- 


ID 


tcrvisitatioii  of  ships  at  sea  is  a  braiicli  ot'  the  law  of  sclt- 
(Icfuiico,  and  is,  in  point  of  fact,  priu't'tuctl  h>j  tJir  puhi'n'  r>'s- 
aeh  of  (ill  tuitions,  incliidiiig  those  of  tlw  rn'iiid  Sftdi's,  wlion 
the  piratical  character  of  a  vessel  is  susj)ecte(l.  The  right 
of  visit  is  conceded  for  the  sole  ])iiri>ose  of  ascertainin<jf  the 
real  national  character  of  the  vessel  sailing  nnder  sns])icions 
circnnistances,  and  is  tchollij  dlstiix't  frt»ii  the.  riyJit  of 
search.  It  has  been  termed  by  the  Snpi'enie  (^)urt  of  the 
United  States  the  rlyht  <f  upproaoJt  for  that  jMu-posi',  and  it 
is  considered  to  bo  well  warranted  by  the  jn-inciple-  of  pnb- 
lic  law,  and  the  usages  of  nations." 

It  would  seem  almost  sni)ertlnons  to  quote  authorities  to 
establish  a  principle  so  clearly  based  upon  reason ;  atid  one 
must  bo  driven  to  conclusions  not  very  favoral)le  to  the  sin- 
cerity of  parties,  bound  by  treaty  stij)ulations  for  the  sup- 
pression of  the  slave  trade,  who  object  to  the  right  to  visit 
ships  under  any  reasonable  suspicion  of  their  being  engaged 
in  that  traffic,  to  ascertain  whether  they  really  belong  to  the 
nation  whose  flag  thev  disidav. 

To  tlic  same  end  as  the  dictum  of  Chancellor  Kent,  the 
principles  of  Judge  Story,  in  the  case  of  the  "Marianna 
Flora,"  (11  Wheaton's  Ileports,  p.  48,)  necessarily  point. 

That  learned  Judge  there  says,  "  It  has  been  argued  that 
no  shii)  has  a  right  to  approach  another  at  sea ;  and  that 
every  ship  has  a  right  to  draw  around  her  a  line  of  jurisdic- 
tion, w'ithin  which  no  other  is  at  liberty  to  intrude ;  in  short, 
that  she  may  appropriate  so  much  of  the  ocean  as  she  may 
deem  necessary  for  her  protection,  and  prevent  any  nearer 
approach. 

"This  doctrine  appears  to  us  novel,  and  is  not  supported 
by  any  authority.  It  goes  to  estaUlsh  vjxm  the  ocean,  a  ter- 
ritorial jurisdiction  like  that  ivhich  is  claimed  hj  all  nations 
within  canon  shot  of  their  shores,  in  virtue  of  their  general 
sovereignty.  But  the  latter  right  is  founded  npon  the  2)rin- 
ciple  of  sovereign  and  jyermanent  aj^j^ropriation,  and  has 
never  been  successfidly  asserted  leyond  it. 


20 


"Every  vessel  uiidoubtcdly  liiis  ii  ri^lit  to  tlio  use  of  ho 
much  of  the  ocean  us  she  occupies,  atid  as  is  essential  to  her 
own  movements.  Beyond  this  no  exclusive  ri^lit  has  over 
yet  been  recognized,  and  wc  see  no  reason  for  admitting  its 
existence.  Merchant  ships  are  in  the  constant  habit  of  ap- 
proaching each  other  on  the  ocean,  either  to  relievo  their 
own  distress,  to  procure  information,  or  to  ascertain  tho 
character  of  strangers ;  and  hitherto  there  has  never  been 
su})i)Osed,  in  such  conduct,  any  breach  of  the  customary  ob- 
servances, or  of  the  strictest  pi-incii)les  of  the  law  of  nations. 
In  respect  to  ships  of  war  sailing,  as  in  the  present  case,  nn- 
dor  the  authority  of  their  governments  to  arrest  j)ii-ates,  and 
other  jynhlie  offenden^  thtn'e  is  no  redwn  why  they  may  not 
approach  any  vessels  descried  at  sea,  for  the  purpose  of  as- 
certaininy  their  real  characters.  Such  a  right  seenis  indis- 
pensable for  the  fair  and  discreet  exercise  of  their  author- 
ity;  and  the  use  of  it  cannot  be  justly  deemed  indicative 
of  any  design  to  insult  or  injure  those  they  approach  or  to 
impede  them  in  their  lawful  commerce." 

Anotiier  great  writer  lays  down  the  principle  as  follows : 

"The  fear  of  meeting  with  a  pirate,  and  being  the  dupe 
of  deceitful  ajipearances,  is  the  reason  why  no  credit  is  given 
to  thejiag  of  a  vessel,  though  a  ship  of  war. ''^  2  Azuni,  204, 
602,  c.  3,  §  3. 

Bynkerslioek,  as  quoted  by  Mr.  Wheaton,  in  his  treatise 
on  International  Law,  p.  550,  elsewhere  observes : 

"  It  is  lawful  to  detain  a  neutral  vessel  in  order  to  ascer- 
tain, not  hy  the  fag  merely,  'which  may  he  fraudulently  as- 
sumed, hut  hy  the  documents  themselves  on  hoard^  whether  she 
is  really  neutralP 

The  same  principle,  though,  in  this  particular  statement, 
referred  to  as  a  belligerent  right,  is  equally  applicable  to  the 
right  of  visit,  in  time  of  peace,  for  the  same  end,  viz. :  to 
ascertain  the  real  character  of  tho  vessel ;  for  instance, 
whether  the  vessel  be  really  an  American  vessel,  or  a  pirate 
engaged  in  the  slave  trade — for,  by  the  laws  of  the  United 


21 


States,  jis  well  as  by  those  of  Kii;,^lim(l,  tlie  AlVlcaii  slave 
trado  is  declared  ph-nri/  to  its  own  citizens  eii<x!i«^'ed  in  it. 
Mr.  Cliaiieellor  Kent,  m  tlm  first  volnme  of  his  ('oninienta- 
ries,  i)a<;'e  li>l,  says:  ''The  African  slave  trade  is  an  offence 
against  the  ninnieipal  lau  of  most  nations  in  Knrope,  and  it 
is  declared  to  he  j>iriicy  by  tiie  statute  laws  of  Kiigland  and 
the  United  States." 

In  the  h»n^  and  tedious  tie^otiations  for  iIh;  ?^u])j)ression 
of  the  slave  trade,  between  the  j^overninents  of  (Jrcat  Hrit- 
aiu  and  the  Tnited  States,  Mr.  Adams,  then  minister  of 
the  latter  country  at  London,  in  a  letter  of  ;31st  March,  182.3, 
to  Sir  S.  Canniui^,  transmitted  therewith  a  copy  of  the  act 
of  Con<^ress  of  IHth  May,  jsilo,  by  which  "any  citizen  of  the 
United  States,  being  of  the  crew  of  any  foreign  shii)  en- 
gaged in  the  slave  trade,  or  any  person  whatever  being  of 
the  crew  of  any  ship  owned,  in  whole  or  in  part,  or  navi- 
gated on  behalf  of  American  citizens,  partici])ating  in  the 
slave  trade,  is  declared  to  Jiave  incurivd  the  i)enalty  ^^^  pi- 
racy, and  nnide  liable  to  at(Hie  for  the  crime  with  his  life." 
(See  Wheatoj'  on  the  llight  of  Search,  pp.  !S8,  84.) 

So  long,  then,  as  the  laws  (»f  this  country  and  ln!r  conven- 
tion with  Great  Britain  remain  as  they  are,  making  the  slave 
trade  piracy,  it  is  impossible  to  6U[)i)ose  that  vessels,  natu- 
rally subjecting  themselves,  or  l)eing  subjected,  to  susjticions 
of  being  engaged  in  that  trafhc,  whether  ^vom  the  fact  of 
their  vicinity  to  such  places  where  the  trade  is  carried  on, 
or  from  the  fact  of  the  Hag  of  their  countr}-  having  been 
prostituted  to  its  protection,  can  be  released  from  that  su- 
pervision, on  the  part  of  vessels  of  war,  necessary  to  ascer- 
tain their  real  character,  whether  it  be  called  an  act  of 
visit,  or  apjjroaeh.,  or  by  any  other  name ;  and  such  is  the 
view  taken  by  many  of  the  reallj'  candid  and  intelligent 
journals  of  the  United  States. 

The  Charleston  Mercury  says  ui>on  this  subject : — "  Here, 
again,  we  see  the  humiliating  position  in  wdiich  the  United 
States  are  put  by  our  absurd  legislation  with  regard  to  the 


22 


AtViciin  slave  t'-ade.  As  a  pirate  is  hastes  humani  generia^ 
no  cruiser  of  any  nation,  it  is  supposed,  can  be  blamed  for 
ascertaining  by  force  whether  a  vessel  is  a  pirate  or  not. 

'-'-  lltnce  the  cruisers  of  every  nation  hi  the  world  have  a 
right  to  come  upon  our  coasts,  and  overhaul  every  vessel  which 
they  thhk  jrroper  to  suspect  of  being  engaged  in  the  African 
slave  trade,  the  laws  of  the  United  States  declaring  them  to 
he  j)irates.^^ 

The  position  assumed  by  this  leading  journal  is  the  more 
open  and  manly  one,  of  repealing  the  laws  of  the  United 
States,  and  denouncing  the  treaties  making  the  slave  trade 
piracy,  rather  than  continuing  them  and  making  them  a 
dead  letter,  by  the  denial  of  their  necessary  consequences. 

The  fact  then  is,  so  far  from  the  right  of  visit  under  rea- 
sonable suspicion,  even  in  time  of  peace,  being  an  interpo- 
lation of  the  law  of  nations,  the  right  to  resist  it  is  a  doctrine 
which,  until  late  years,  has  never  been  assumed,  and  that 
only  by  the  United  States. 

If  they  deny  the  power  of  any  one  nation,  or  indeed  as 
they  do,  of  any  number  of  nations  without  the  consent  of 
all,  to  change  any  of  the  recognized  principles  of  interna- 
tional law,  how  absurd  that  they  should  assume  a  right  with 
respect  to  themselves,  to  which  all  other  nations  submit ;  a 
right,  too,  which  England  as  freely  concedes  with  regard  to 
her  own  vessels  as  she  claims  with  regard  to  others. 

The  weakness  of  any  principle  of  international  law  upon 
which  the  resistance  of  the  right  of  visit  can  be  based,  is 
evident  from  the  urgency  and  haste  with  which  the  decision 
of  Lord  Stowell,  in  the  case  of  "Le  Louis"  is  pressed  to 
nuiinlain  it.  Any  one  at  all  familiar  with  the  decisions  of 
this  learned  Judge,  and  indeed  with  the  particulars  of  that 
decision  itself,  will  know  the  fallacy  of  the  assertion,  that 
any  dicta  of  Lord  Stowell's  can  be  adduced,  other  than  as 
confirmatory  of  the  ground  which  Great  Britain  maintains 
upon  this  (piestion. 

Li  the  case  of  "  Lc  Louis,"  (2  Dodson's  Adm.  Reports,  p. 


23 


237,)  the  slave  trade  was  then  (1816)  not  only  not  declared 
piracy  by  the  Uiws  of  the  country  to  which  that  vessel  be- 
longed, but  actually  protected  by  them.  Had  the  laws  of 
France  and  her  convention  with  England  then  allowed  it, 
Lord  Stowell  %vould  have  sustained  the  capture  and  condem- 
nation of  the  French  ship  "  Le  Louis,"  and,  of  course,  sup- 
ported the  right  of  visitation  as  necessarily  incidental,  in 
the  same  manner  as  he  had  previously  sustained  the  con- 
demnation of  the  American  ships  "Amedie"  and  "For- 
tuna,"  to  the  particulars  of  which  we  shall  afterwards 
recur. 

Li  regard  to  "Le  Louis,"  Lord  Stowell  says : — "The  right 
of  visitation  being  in  this  present  case  exercised  in  time  of 
peace,  the  question  arises,  how  is  it  to  be  legalized  ?" — there- 
by admitting  that  it  could  be  legalized — "  and  looking  to 
what  I  have  described  as  the  known  existing  law  of  nations, 
evidenced  by  all  authority  and  all  i)ractice,  it  must  he  upon 
the  ground  that  the  captund  vessel  is  to  he  taken  legally 
as  a  pirate^  or  else  some  new  ground  is  to  be  assumed,  on 
which  this  right  which  has  been  distinctly  admitted  not  to 
exist,  can  be  supported." 

Arguing  the  question  that  the  slave  trade  was  not  then 
piracy  by  the  laws  of  England  or  France,  his  lordship  says: 
— "  No  lawyer,  I  presume,  could  be  found  hardy  enough  to 
maintain  that  an  indictment  for  piracy  could  be  supported 
by  the  mere  evidence  of  a  trading  in  slaves." 

The  learned  Judge  then  goes  on  to  show  the  legality  of  the 
slave  trade  as  previously  permitted  and  encouraged  by  dif- 
ferent civilized  nations,  arguing  tliat  in  the  absence  of  direct 
and  positive  statutes  it  could  not  be  considered  a  violation  of 
national  law,  and  further  Bhowing  that  in  this  case  of  "Le 
Louis"  there  was  no  violation  of  the  municipal  law  of  the 
country  to  which  tluit  vessel  belonged,  and  that  England 
had  no  right  to  inflict  a  punishment  upon  the  subjects  of 
France  in  the  prosecution  of  a  trade,  wliich,  though  it  might 
even  be  considered  criminal  by  the  laws  of  other  nations, 


24 


was  tolerated  by  those  of  their  own.  Ilence  the  reason  for 
tliat  so  often  misquoted  remark,  tliat  "  to  press  forward  to  a 
great  principle  by  breaking  through  every  other  great  prin- 
ciple that  stands  in  the  way  of  its  establishment ;  to  force 
the  way  to  the  liberation  of  Africa,  by  trampling  on  the 
independence  of  other  states  in  Europe ;  in  short  to  procure 
an  eminent  good  by  means  that  are  unlawful,  is  as  little 
consonant  to  private  morality  as  to  public  justice.  Obtain 
the  concurrence  of  other  nations  if  you  can,  by  application, 
by  remonstrance,  by  exam})le,  by  every  other  peaceable  in- 
strument which  man  can  employ  to  obtain  the  consent  of 
man.  But  a  nation  is  not  justified  in  assuming  rights  that 
do  not  belong  to  her,  merely  because  she  means  to  apply 
them  to  a  laudable  purpose,  nor  in  setting  out  upon  a  moral 
crusade  of  converting  other  nations  by  acts  of  unlawful 
force." 

Nowhere  throughout  the  whole  of  this  case  does  Lord 
Stowell  refer  to  any  change  of  his  opinion,  as  expressed  in 
the  cases  of  the  "  Amedie"  and  "  Fortuna,"  but  six  yeare 
previously.  Had  the  circumstances  given  rise  to  any  such 
change,  he  would  have  avowed  it,  and  given  his  reasons  for 
it. 

The  fact  is,  there  was  no  change  in  his  opinion.  Only 
the  circumstances  of  the  case  of  "Le  Louis,"  not  the  prin- 
ciples upon  which  it  was  decided,  were  difierent  from  those 
of  the  "Amedie"  and  "Fortuna." 

In  the  •  ise  '  -f  the  "  Amedie,"  (1  Acton's  Admiralty  Re- 
ports, p.  24'  Sir  William  Grant  decided,  that  "Transport- 
ation of  slaves  from  the  coast  of  Africa  to  Matanzas,  in  the 
island  of  Cuba,  a  colony  of  the  enemy,  was  illegal,  and  af- 
fects the  property  of  the  ship  and  her  cargo  of  slaves.  The 
decree  of  the  court  below  atHrmed,  condemning  the  cargo 
of  slaves  as  prize,  (afterwards  set  at  liberty,)  and  the  ship  as 
lawful  prize  to  the  captor.  The  trade  considered  to  be  pro- 
hibited by  the  American  law,  which,  having  been  officially 
notified  to  the  court,  the  neutral  was  excluded  from  the 


25 


benefit  ho  would  otherwise  have  derived  from  the  silence 
or  permission  of  the  law  of  America,  notwithstanding  the 
prohibitory  enactments  of  Great  Britain." 

The  doctrine  in  the  "  Fortuna,"  as  laid  down  by  Lord 
Stowell,  then  Sir  William  Scott,  was:  "that  any  trade  con- 
trary to  the  general  law  of  nations,  although  not  tending  to, 
or  cux'ompanied  with,  any  infraction  of  the  helligercnt  rights 
of  that  country  whose  tribunals  are  called  upon  to  consider 
it,  may  subject  the  vessel  enijdoyed  in  that  trade  to  confis- 
cation. The  slave  trade  is  now  deemed,  by  this  country, 
contrary  to  the  law  of  nations,  unless  tolerated  by  the  mu- 
nicipal regulations  of  the  state  to  which  the  owners  of  the 
vessel  engaged  in  the  trade  may  belong."  (1  Dodson's  adm. 
Reports,  p.  81.) 

The  judgment  of  Sir  William  Grant  in  the  previous  case 
of  the  "  Amedie"  was  referred  to  and  endorsed  by  Sir  Wil- 
liam Scott  in  this  case  of  the  "  Fortuna,"  in  the  following 
terms:  "the  case  of  the  'Amedie'  will  bind  the  conscience 
of  this  court  to  the  effect  of  compelling  it  to  pronounce  sen- 
tence of  confiscation." 

See  also  condemnation  of  the  "  Africa,"  "  Nancy,"  and 
"  Anne,"  American  slavers,  2  Acton's  Adm.  Rep.,  pages  1 
to  11. 

In  the  case  of  the  "Diana,"  a  Swedish  vessel,  condemned 
at  Sierra  Leone  for  being  engaged  in  the  slave  trade.  Sir 
William  Scott,  on  appeal,  reversed  the  decision,  on  the 
ground  that  Sweden  had  not  abolished  the  slave  trade. 

Tliis  decision  was  given  in  1813,  four  years  prior  to  that 
of  "Le  Louis;"  and  as  tJie  cases  are  analogous,  and  the 
learned  Judge  refers  in  that  of  the  "Diana"  to  the  judg- 
ment of  Sir  A\^illiam  Grant  in  that  of  the  "Amedie,"  as 
containing  no  princii)le  at  variance  with  his  decision  regard- 
ing the  "  Diana,"  we  can  easily  see  how  the  case  of  "  Le 
Louis"  has  been  tortured  to  an  apjdication  which  does  not 
belong  to  it ;  and  that  the  j^f^ncijdes  of  Lord  Stowell's 
judgment  in  "Le  Louis"  and  Sir  AVilliam  Scott's  in  the 


26 


a 


Fortuna,"  are  as  identical  as  the  Judge  wlio  decided  upon 
both  cases. 

At  tlie  risk  of  being  tedious  on  this  point,  it  will  be  nec- 
essary to  give  the  following  extract  from  the  judgment  of 
Sir  William  Scott  in  the  "Diana." 

"  Tlie  principle  which  has  been  extracted  by  the  Judge 
of  the  court  below,  from  the  case  of  the  "  Amedie,"  is  the 
reverse  of  the  real  principle  there  laid  down  by  the  Supe- 
rior Court,  which  was,  that  where  the  municipal  laws  of 
the  country  to  which  the  parties  belong  have  prohibited  the 
trade,  the  tribunals  of  this  country  will  hold  it  to  be  illegal 
upon  the  general  principles  of  justice  and  humanity,  and 
refuse  restitution  of  the  property ;  but,  on  the  other  hand, 
though  they  consider  the  trade  to  be  generally  contrary  to 
the  principles  of  justice  and  humanity,  where  not  tolerated 
by  me  laws  of  the  country,  they  will  respect  the  property 
of  persons  engaged  in  it  under  the  sanction  of  the  laws  of 
their  own  country.  Tlie  Lords  of  Appeal  did  not  mean  to 
set  themselves  up  as  legislators  for  the  whole  world,  or  pre- 
sume in  any  manner  to  interfere  with  the  commercial  regu- 
lations of  other  states,  or  to  lay  down  general  principles 
that  were  to  overthrow  their  legislative  provisions  with  re- 
spect to  the  conduct  of  their  own  subjects." 

Mr,  Wheaton  in  his  treatise  on  the  Eight  of  Search,  takes 
strong  ground  against  even  the  right  of  visit,  but  argues  the 
question  with  a  partiality  painful  to  see  in  a  person  of  such 
varied  accomplishments  and  acknowledged  ability.  lie 
takes  great  credit  to  the  United  States  as  being  the  first  to 
abolish  the  slave  trade.  This  is  not  altogether  correct.  The 
slave  trade  was  certainly  prohibited  to  Americans  as  far  as 
foreign  states  were  concerned,  in  1794,  but  w^as  permitted 
between  Africa  and  the  United  States  up  to  the  year  1808, 
while  the  British  act  prohibiting  this  traffic  was  passed  on 
the  25th  of  March,  1807,  though  it  had  previously  passed 
the  Commons  in  1794.  So  tliat,  in  reality,  the  British  na- 
tion was  the  first  to  prohibit  it,  as  it  has  always  been 


27 


the  most  urgent  and  most  active  in  the  enforcement  of  the 
consequences  of  sucli  prohibition. 

According  to  Wheaton,  (International  Law,  p.  178,)  "  The 
final  abolition  of  the  African  shive  trade  was  stipuhated  by 
the  treaties  of  Paris,  Kiel,  and  Ghent,  in  1814: ;  confirmed 
by  the  declaration  of  the  Congress  of  Vienna,  of  tlie  8th  of 
February,  1815,  and  reiterated  by  the  additional  article  an- 
nexed to  the  treaty  of  peace  concluded  at  Paris  on  the  20th 
of  November,  1815.  The  accession  of  Spain  and  Portugal 
to  the  principles  of  the  abolition  was  finally  obtained  by 
the  treaties  between  Great  Britain  and  those  powers,  of  23d 
September,  1817,  and  the  22d  of  January,  1815 ;  and  by  a 
convention  concluded  with  Brazil  in  182(5,  it  Avas  made 
piratical  for  the  sid)jects  of  that  country  to  be  engaged  in 
the  trade  after  1830." 

"  By  the  treaties  of  the  30th  of  November,  1831,  and  22d 
of  May,  1833,  between  France  and  Great  Britain,  to  which 
nearly  all  the  maritime  powers  of  Europe  have  subsequently 
acceded,  the  mutual  right  of  search  was  conceded,  within 
certain  geographical  limits,  as  a  means  of  suppressing  the 
slave  trade.  The  provisions  of  these  treaties  wore  extended 
to  a  wider  range  by  the  quintuple  treaty,  concluded  on  the 
26th  of  Deceniber,  1812,  between  the*  live  great  European 
powers,  and  subsequently  ratified  between  them,  except 
by  France,  which  power  still  remained  only  bound  by  her 
treaties  of  1831  and  1833  with  Great  Britain." 

By  the  treaty  concluded  at  Washington  the  9th  of  August, 
181:2,  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  referring 
to  the  10th  article  of  the  Treaty  of  Ghent,  by  which  it  had 
been  agreed  that  both  the  contracting  parties  should  use 
their  best  endeavors  to  promote  the  entire  abolition  of  the 
traffic  in  slaves,  it  was  provided,  article  8,  that  "  the  parties 
mutually  stipulate  that  each  shall  prepare,  equip,  and  main- 
tain in  service,  on  the  coast  of  Africa,  a  sufficient  and  ade- 
quate squadron,  or  naval  force  of  vessels,  of  suitable  num- 
bers and  descriptions,  to  carry  in  all  not  less  than  eighty 


28 


guns,  to  enforce  separately  and  respectively  tlie  laws,  rights, 
and  obligations  of  each  of  the  two  countries  for  the  suppres- 
sion of  the  slave  trade,  the  said  squadrons  to  be  independent 
of  each  other,  but  the  two  governments  stipulating,  never- 
theless, to  give  such  orders  to  the  officers  commanding  their 
respective  forces  as  shall  enable  them  most  eftectually  to 
act  in  concert  and  co-operation,  uj3on  mutual  consultation  as 
exigencies  may  arise,  for  the  attainment  of  the  true  objects 
of  this  article  ;  copies  of  all  such  orders  to  be  communicated 
by  each  government  to  the  other  respectively." 

This  is  the  present  and  only  treaty  which  has  ever  gone 
into  eft'ect  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  for 
the  suppression  of  the  slave  trade ;  though  other  nations, 
even  Spain  and  Brazil,  have  entered  into  far  more  strin- 
gent arrangements. 

The  American  government  seems  almost  always  to  have 
evaded  the  question  of  treaty  stipulations  for  the  suppression 
of  the  slave  trade  with  Great  Britain,  whose  constant  endea- 
vors have  been  so  long  and  uniformly  exerted  to  bring  the 
United  States  into  some  settled  plan  of  concert  wUh  other 
nations  on  the  subject.  So  much  so  has  this  been  the  case, 
that  it  has  given  rise  to  strong  doubts  as  to  its  sincerity  in 
desiring  the  su})pression  of  the  slave  trade. 

First,  we  find  Lord  Castlereagh  zealously  urging  the  mat- 
ter upon  Mr.  Rush,  American  minister  at  London,  and  while 
Mr.  Adams,  the  Secretary  at  Washington,  instructed  the  lat- 
ter to  reply,  that  the  President  desired  him  "  to  give  the 
strongest  assurances  to  the  British  government  that  tlic  so- 
licitude of  the  United  States  continued,  with  all  the  earnest- 
ness that  had  ever  distinguished  the  course  of  their  policy  in 
respect  to  that  odious  traffic,"  we  find  these  mere  professions 
considered  quite  satisfactory,  and  as  all  that  could  really  be 
done. 

Next,  in  1820,  Sir  Stratford  Canning,  the  British  minister 
at  Washington,  brought  .  r;  matter  before  Mr.  John  Quijcy 
Adams,  the  American  .    oretary  of  State,  but  with  no  more 


29 


satisfactory  an  issue  than  a  lengthy  reply,  describing  the 
horrors  of  the  slave  trade,  with  counter-proposals.  Sir 
Stratford  returned  to  the  charge  in  1828,  but  only  received  a 
copy  of  an  act  of  Congress,  stating  the  slave  trade  to  be 
piracy,  and  that  American  citizens  should  be  hung  if  taken 
in  jlagrajite. 

But  Sir  Stratford  was  n(  >t  fated  to  be  so  successful  in  his 
negotiations  with  the  rising  republic,  as  he  has  since  been 
with  the  dcs})otrc  Porte.  He  kept  on  writing  and  urging, 
but  to  little  purport,  save  at  last,  in  April,  1824-,  a  treaty 
was  concluded  making  the  slave  trade  })iracy,  and  conceding 
the  mutual  right  of  visitation  and  search  between  the  ves- 
sels of  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States,  on  the  coast  of 
Africa,  America,  and  the  West  Indies,  and  signed  on  the 
part  of  Mr.  Eush  for  the  latter,  and  Mr.  Iluskinson  and  Mr. 
Canning  for  the  former  country.  What  fascinations  could 
have  been  brought  to  bear  on  Mr.  Bush  to  sign  an  agree- 
ment so  soon  to  be  repudiated  at  home  'I 

Then  we  must  pass  over  a  long,  barren  bleak,  till  we 
come  to  the  unfertile  arrangements  of  1842,  the  terms  of 
wdiich  we  have  previously  given,  and  which  seem  only  to 
have  resulted  in  the  notoriety  they  have  won  for  the  Amer- 
ican flag  as  a  safeguard  to  slave-trading  interests,  and  the 
principles  they  have  instilled  into  the  minds  of  the  recent 
meeting  of  the  soi-disant  ship-ow-ners  of  New  York,  that 
"  our  flag  covers  the  cargo,  whether  that  cargo  consists  of 
niggers  or  nothing." 

If  the  deck  of  an  American  vessel  is  to  be  considered  as 
inviolable  as  American  soil,  are  these  the  means  by  which 
it  is  to  be  brought  about  ? 

The  argument  that  a  ship  at  sea  and  a  man  ashore  hold 
equal  rights  with  regard  to  visit  or  arrest,  is  simply  absurd  ; 
though  if  the  policeman,  following  on  the  wake  of  a  sus- 
picious character  on  land,  can  get  into  his  haunts  to  ascer- 
tain the  nature  of  the  cargo  he  is  carrying  away,  he  does 
not  generally  hesitate  upon  the  question  of  his  right  to  visit. 


80 


But  as  tlic  sea  is  different  from  the  land,  so  are  the  police 
regulations  which  govern  each.  No  nation — at  least  (rreat 
Britain  does  not — clain?8  the  right  to  stop  or  rule  Aniei'ican 
vessels  at  sea.  England  only  claims  the  right  to  know 
whether  the  vessels  she  meets  and  suspects  of  being  pirates 
upon  the  ocean,  are — though  hoisting  an  American  flag — 
really  American  vessels  or  not.  As  before  cpioted  from 
Judge  Story,  the  doctrine  of  any  ship's  appropriating  so 
much  of  the  ocean  as  she  may  choose,  and  preventing  any 
nearer  approach,  seems  to  be  novel,  and  not  supj^orted 
by  any  authority.  "It  goes,"  he  says,  "to  establish  upon 
the  ocean  a  territorial  jurmllction^  like  that  which  is 
claimed  by  all  nations  within  cannon-shot  of  their  shores, 
in  virtue  of  their  general  sovereignty.  But  the  latter  right 
is  founded  ujx^n  the  principles  of  sovereign  and  jxu'ma)ient 
appropriation,  and  has  never  heen  successfully  asserted  he- 
yond  it. 

A  ship  at  sea  is,  as  it  were,  a  floating  island  upon  the 
ocean.  If  it  were  fixed  and  stationary  as  the  soil,  then  it 
would  be  the  duty  of  all  vessels  to  know  and  respect  its  ter- 
ritory. But  inasmuch  as  it  is  transitory  in  time  and  mov- 
able in  space,  as  it  occupies  a  portion  of  an  element  com- 
mon to  all  other  vessels,  it  becomes  necessary,  when  suspi- 
cions warrant  the  inquiry,  before  full  credit  can  be  given 
to  the  display  of  a  mere  signal,  hundreds  of  wdiich,  of  dif- 
ferent nationalities,  it  can  display  in  as  many  hours,  that  the 
documents  which  really  create  the  ship's  nationality  should 
be  produced,  in  order  to  give  her  claim  to  that  inviolability 
which  appertains  to  the  soil  of  the  country  to  which  she 
belongs. 

Despite  the  unreasonableness  of  the  cause,  one  cannot  but 
admire  the  spirited  position  taken  by  the  American  people 
against  what  tliey  conceive  to  be  an  injury  or  affront  put 
upon  their  national  pride.  But  the  chief  danger  in  the  im- 
petuosity manifested  upon  such  occasions,  lies  in  the  imag- 
ination of  injury  where  none  is  intended,  or  exists;  and  the 


31 

rash  measures  so  openly  advocated  by  leading  niend)er8  of 
Congress,  are  a  consequence  of  such  imagination,  or  worse 
still,  a  concosbion  to  a  supposed  state  of  puldic  opinion,  which 
perhaps,  after  all,  has  no  real  existence.     Any  one  who    n- 
derstands  the  American  people,  knows  them  to  he  as  gener- 
ous, and  quick  to  acknowledge  what  they  feel  to  he  candid 
and  correct  treatment,  as  they  are  hasty  and  im})rndent  in 
resisting  what  they  consider  the  reverse.     Even  if  their  posi- 
tion should  be  the  correct  one,  upon  the  question  of  visit,  an 
amicable  settlement  of  that  matter  can  easily  be  arranged 
by  dii)lomatic  effort,  as  far  as  the  slave  trade  is  concerned, 
which  is  the  only  case  where  the  right  can  ever  be  objection- 
ably exercised  by  Great  Britain.   Let  us  hope  the  day  is  dis- 
tant, nay,  will  never  come,  when  these  two  great  powers  of 
Christendom  shall  so  falsify  tlieir  moral  and  political  creed, 
as  to  commit  the  settlement  of  such  disputes  to  the  bloody 
arbitration  of  war. 


